I can't see how the intentions differ that much. The palace spins - the media is trying to see through that spin! It works the same way in politics, finances, world affairs, whatever - but maybe it takes a journalist to actually know how these things work. I was a royal reporter for some years. I know exactly how the palace spins.

The media is trying to see through the spin? Nonsense. The media tries to break down the barrier piece by piece. The monarchy provides what is necessary and appropriate for circulation. The media then continues to abuse that and will, with minimal constraint, attempt to take what it likes when it's not handed over willingly.

Quote:

'The Palace requires the use of media in the interests of national broadcast'

Requires the use of media for the benefit of national interest. Weddings, christenings, special occasions, legitimate news, the Queen's Christmas message etc.

For the respective royal events, charitable causes and traditions people enjoy seeing and experiencing. In other words, the cultural intrigues of the institution.

It is my sincerest hope and wish that the danish monarchy continues. I believe that Denmark is best represented by a monarch. But of course, times can always change and what is deemed best at the current time may not be so 50 years from now. But if the monarchy has survived and functioned for over 1000 years, I feel that in can continue to do so 1000 years more.

But that's the optimist in me

__________________

__________________
"Free at last, free at last, free at last. Thank God the Almighty we are free at last"-Martin Luther King

The media is trying to see through the spin? Nonsense. The media tries to break down the barrier piece by piece. The monarchy provides what is necessary and appropriate for circulation. The media then continues to abuse that and will, with minimal constraint, attempt to take what it likes when it's not handed over willingly.

Requires the use of media for the benefit of national interest. Weddings, christenings, special occasions, legitimate news, the Queen's Christmas message etc.

For the respective royal events, charitable causes and traditions people enjoy seeing and experiencing. In other words, the cultural intrigues of the institution.

Quite agree, quite a few people follow royal events, and the media is a good launch pad for promoting this interest, on an entertainment level, but not on a national importance level, that might be stretching the point!

Quite agree, quite a few people follow royal events, and the media is a good launch pad for promoting this interest, on an entertainment level, but not on a national importance level, that might be stretching the point!

Quite agree, quite a few people follow royal events, and the media is a good launch pad for promoting this interest, on an entertainment level, but not on a national importance level, that might be stretching the point!

Though to suggest it isn't, would be a paradox of sorts. These people, this institution, is of national importance. They aren't who they are for anyone's amusement and nor are the royal events which are televised.

The Queen doesn't make her New Years braodcast for entertainment value, she does it because as Queen, she has a scoial and governing obligation to do so.

The royal family are not entertainers, they are the royal family. The foremost example of national identity.

(Correction: The Queen makes a New Years Broadcast, not a Christmas one)

Though to suggest it isn't, would be a paradox of sorts. These people, this institution, is of national importance. They aren't who they are for anyone's amusement and nor are the royal events which are televised.

The Queen doesn't make her New Years braodcast for entertainment value, she does it because as Queen, she has a scoial and governing obligation to do so.

The royal family are not entertainers, they are the royal family. The foremost example of national identity.

The Queen of Denmark does not have a "governing obligation" to make her New Years broadcast. No where in the Danish constitution does it say, that the Queen has to do her broadcast. It is a tradition started by Margrethe's grandfather Christian X.
Well, if the royals are not entertainers, maybe they should stop behaving like they are? What the Danish monarchy lacks at the moment, is substance. It's all style and no content - in my humble opinion!

Perhaps the media should stop portraying them as entertainers/celebrities. Once upon a time royal families were treated with a bit more respect by the mass media. Who is responsible for the shift in journalistic practices? Certainly not the royals!

Well, that argument goes round in circles, doesn't it? The media should stop portraying them as entertainment, but then the media says that they are providing a demand, so the public should actually stop buying these magazines. And in the end royals do 'use' the entertainment factor to enhance their position. I mean for example, why would you actually show your wedding on television? IMO because the entertainment value will strenghten the monarchy.
Though the media does play a role indeed, in the end it is the public that makes the difference. It is the public who decide that they prefer to read small glammy articles on royals instead of more in-depth articles about cause X of princess Y by buying (or not buying) a certain newspaper each morning.

I agree,a bit.
On showing the weddings on tv?It is not entertainment,it is the future Monarch getting married,
an occasion of National importance,not some kid on the block.
There is a difference,a huge difference.

On the initial text,whomever concocted it,Is it worth it?Nationalism or National waste?Wrong headline.Very wrong.

The Queen of Denmark does not have a "governing obligation" to make her New Years broadcast. No where in the Danish constitution does it say, that the Queen has to do her broadcast. It is a tradition started by Margrethe's grandfather Christian X.

But of course. Obligation was, perhaps, not the right word as such. A New Years broadcast is mentioned no where in the Danish constitution, but being the incumbant sovereign, it would therefore be a personal preference, to continue the practice initiated by her late grandfather and so remains a governing tradition.

I don't think many people disagree with Villemann and want a monarchy without substance, so it is safe to assume that V. isn't the only one who wants a monarchy with substance. Whether the substance is lacking at the moment is open to debate of course.

I agree,a bit.
On showing the weddings on tv?It is not entertainment,it is the future Monarch getting married,
an occasion of National importance,not some kid on the block.
There is a difference,a huge difference.

On the initial text,whomever concocted it,Is it worth it?Nationalism or National waste?Wrong headline.Very wrong.

And why is that, Lucien? Is it because you have an aversion to analytical discourse that requires for one to think differently? To question things for the sake of discussion even though it may be uncomfortable for you and others? To think about a particular issue from another angle hence outside of their normal thought process?

And why is that, Lucien? Is it because you have an aversion to analytical discourse that requires for one to think differently? To question things for the sake of discussion even though it may be uncomfortable for you and others? To think about a particular issue from another angle hence outside of their normal thought process?

That aversion you mention does not exist,well,not in my mind at least.Questioning is OK,but keep it sensible,and that is often a difficulty wouldn't you agree?

I'm all for a Monarchy with substance,and thank goodness,the one I live in is about that instead of catwalk cats,what about yours?

Is it difficult? Heavens no especially if one is used to this type of debate. However, they way you phrased your statement alerted me to counter-question you. So, let me say this: Why is it when one proposes the debate of What is Nationalism and is the monarchy relevant/really worth it in the 21st century many are quick to state blasphemy?

Quote:

I'm all for a Monarchy with substance,and thank goodness,the one I live in is about that instead of catwalk cats,what about yours dear?

Don't you believe that is an extremely bizarre question to ask an American? Let me answer for you: Why yes, yes it is.

However, for the sake of debate, do I believe the monarchy is Denmark is worth it? Yes, I do. As long as they keep the house small and do not create more titles things will be fine. Danes seem to be pleased with their royals, and if their attitude towards life in general, hence "they don't expect much"*(which one can easily deduce to mean that they may or may not have low expectations of their royals if they have melancholy attitude), the Danish monarchy will live on. How does this tie in with Nationalism? Simple: The Danish monarchy has been around for a thousand years. This tiny country prides itself not only on their accomplishments, but the fact they have a long tradition that most nations cannot claim. Overall, it would be a disservice for Denmark if their monarchy ceased.

Finally, for the second and the last time: Do not ever call me dear again... okay? Tak. :)

You're quite right,a bizarre question to ask an American.
Sorry about the dear,I honestly forgot what it was you are not,now I remember.

However I do agree with what you state on Denmark and its Monarchy.
Nationalism always has a sort of negative connotation tho.Denmark does take pride in its Monarchy,yes,
but that doesn't make it Nationalist,as in,for example,Mussolini's nationalism was.There is a sharp distinction
and I wish to point that out.

It depends on the context in which it is used. Xenophobic Nationalism is dangerous; however, I sincerely doubt that is the case within Denmark. Hypothetically, if the country had a population of say 20 million and the Danish royals eased up on some of their official engagements, engaged in 15 or so holidays per royal per year, and the populations attitude were different (hence we don't have high expectations)then there may be a bigger demonstration towards their monarchy.

As long as their house is small, the population remains under 5 million, and immigration is tightly controlled the situation may remain stable.

I think you have to live OUTSIDE Denmark to call it the "Happiest place on earth." When it comes to our monarchy, we could have not only the oldest monarchy in the world, but also the best. Yes, we are back to substance! I love my royal family and I want them to carry on, BUT not at any cost. As a subject, I want to be taken seriously by my monarch and her family. I could list a thousand reasons, why it is so tough being a Danish royalist at the moment! I do envy the Dutch!

So what do you propose? That they are stripped of any income hence they have to make it on their own; for example, everytime they support a charity they get paid for it ten grand here five grand there, live and recieve officials at their own private home at their own expense, etc, etc, etc?

Not everyone in Holland is happy with the RF!!!
The prince of Oranje had long time the image of "prins pilsje"
It was when his father the late prince Claus showed him the issues of water-management that he started to take interest in the issue.
Lately there was criticism about the amount of holidays the CP pair took.
In a short period of time they went twice to Argentina (Christmas and at the end of January).
There was again crticism about the hudge costs of HM Groene Draeck's maintenance (HM sailingship) apparently paid by the ministery of Defence.
So why envy the Dutch?

Not everyone in Holland is happy with the RF!!!
The prince of Oranje had long time the image of "prins pilsje"
It was when his father the late prince Claus showed him the issues of water-management that he started to take interest in the issue.
Lately there was criticism about the amount of holidays the CP pair took.
In a short period of time they went twice to Argentina (Christmas and at the end of January).
There was again crticism about the hudge costs of HM Groene Draeck's maintenance (HM sailingship) apparently paid by the ministery of Defence.
So why envy the Dutch?

Oh my oh my,he had pils?Oh shock!(Pils is Lager,you know,beer)

Oh please,did you ever drink a beer now and then when you were young?

Your points are so in-valid they are invalid,really.You are trying to create what?A mini-hype on how awfull the dutch Monarchy is these days? Sorry,but you have to be aware there are quiet a few very well informed forum members that you will find on your path,and they also can easily put aside each,what,point(?) you tryed to make.Meaning you will have to get/have facts right or otherwise learn more first.

The dutch Monarchy,allthough it is completely O/T on this thread,enjoys such an immensely huge popularity,85%,that a few like you will never be able to hurt it,At all.Freedom of expression is allowed,as long as one has ones facts right.I personally am very allergic to nonsense,it gives me a rash.Proost.